Around the year 1999, empirical researchers first started investigating the performance and implications of formal planning (Thune and House, 1999; Ansoff et al., 2000; Herold, 2001), and since then, over 40 planning-performance studies have been published. Nevertheless, in recent years this particular field of research has slowed down to a trickle, and there is a strong reason for this: Previous studies lacked theoretical grounding, produced a bewildering array of contradictory findings, drew heavy criticism for inadequate methodologies, and had little or no discernable net impact on strategic management research or practice. The purpose of this study is to rectify these shortcomings (Shrader et al., 1984; Pearce et al., 1987a, b).
In spite of this, it appears to be self-evident that the planning-performance relationship has a considerable bearing on both the research and practice of strategic management, and that academics should not completely forsake this avenue of inquiry. This study provides a critical analysis of the planning-performance research, which examines the relationship between planning and the impact it has on organizational performance, which in turn has an effect on the survival of the organization.
The process of formulating, implementing, and controlling strategy, as well as formally documenting organizational expectations, is referred to as planning. Planning can be defined as the act of employing methodical criteria and rigorous examination (Higgins and Vincze, 1993; Mintzberg, 1994; Pearce and Robinson, 1994). Planning is a process that enables us to imagine the future as well as build the essential processes and activities in order to impact and realize that future. Planning professionals, like those working in many other professions, frequently hide their work under a veil of pseudoscientific language in an effort to glorify their work and cultivate a dependent relationship with their clients. In practice, planning procedures are neither complicated nor based on scientific research. It is possible for organizations to design and operate an effective planning program on an ongoing basis with only a small amount of assistance at the beginning and the occasional services of an outside facilitator.
The act of planning entails the execution of a series of underlying procedures with the objective of generating or manipulating a circumstance in order to get an outcome that is more favorable for an organization. This is a significant departure from traditional tactical planning, which is more defensive in nature and looks to the actions of competitors to drive the company’s own actions. When it comes to running a firm, planning gives individual departments like marketing, human resources, and financial focuses general guidance as well as specific tasks. When there is a general agreement regarding the objective of the organization and when the majority of work procedures depend on technical or technological factors, planning may be beneficial to an increase in productivity.
This study goes further than the observation of some previous research that questioned the presence of direct causal linkages between the utilization of planning and enhanced performance. This study makes use of some of the numerous publications that have been written on the application of planning in the commercial sector, as well as the growing number of publications that discuss the application of planning and its potential in the public sector. The process of adaptive thinking, or thinking about how to achieve and keep firm environment alignment, is one of the primary goals of planning. One of the primary reasons of planning is to foster this process (Ansoff, 1991).
However, it seems that businesses stand to benefit more because of their ability to obtain significant advantages not only from adaptive thinking but also from integration and control. Although adaptive thinking can provide significant benefits for small businesses, the integration and control parts of planning likely provide fewer advantages for small businesses than they do for large businesses.
According to Evered (2000), the various applications of the word “planning” range from very broad ones (which encompass the functions of identifying purpose, objectives, and goals) to very restricted ones (namely, those that deal with the means for achieving given objectives). According to Evered, who differentiates between broader and narrower definitions of strategy, Bozeman’s definition is a narrow one; it’s the kind of definition that presupposes a company has an overarching objective. According to Bozeman’s definition, the planning and management process is kicked off whenever there is a shift in the organization’s policies and priorities (Bozeman, 2003).
Therefore, according to Eddie (2004), one might either have a broad or a tight definition of planning. Nevertheless, this definition does not aid managers in the public sector in any way, because they must now decide not only whether or not they wish to establish strategic plans, but also whether or not they should approach such plans with a more global or a more limited viewpoint. Therefore, what appears to be a semantics-related issue is really a cover for a more basic debate about whether or not goal specification should be incorporated into the planning process.
According to Berry (1997), planning is a method for determining the most favorable outcome for your organization’s future as well as the most effective way to get there. In many cases, the strategic planners of an organization are already familiar with a significant portion of the information that will be included in a strategic plan. However, the formulation of the strategic plan is a significant aid in clarifying the plans of the company and ensuring that key executives are all on the same page. However, the planning process itself is significantly more important than the strategic plan document itself. The first step in the planning process involves making an analysis of the existing state of the economy. The first step is to investigate elements that exist beyond the firm and have the potential to impact its performance.
The majority of the time, it is prudent to place primary emphasis on the national, local, or regional, as well as industry-specific economic projections. This aspect of the analysis ought to get underway right away, at least a few weeks before the beginning of the more official planning process. Therefore, it has been reached the conclusion that planning has a positive impact on the performance of organizations, or more specifically, that the amount of planning an organization conducts has a positive impact on the financial performance of that organization. Because this research study is focusing on a bank as its case study, it is essential to have an understanding of the planning and financial performance relationships that exist within banks.
The level of involvement in planning that managers have is influenced by a number of factors, including those that are managerial (such as planning expertise and beliefs about the connections between planning and performance), environmental (such as complexity and change), and organizational (such as size and structural complexity). Several research have posited that the influence of these elements on the level of planning intensity are as follows: (Kallman and Shapiro, 1990; Unni, 1990; Robinson and Pearce, 1998; Robinson et al., 1998; Watts and Ormsby, 1990b).
Studies that analyzed the connection between planning and financial performance came to the conclusion that the intensity with which firms engage in the planning process causes an indirectness and lack of one-to-one correspondence between factors such as planning expertise and beliefs about planning performance relationships (managerial factors), environmental complexity and change (environmental factors), firm size and structural complexity (organizational fact), and so on. These findings were found in the studies that analyzed the connection between planning and financial performance. Previous study seems to have lost its focus on the relationship between planning and the financial performance of organizations, which is supported by the contradictory findings of some of the research. A lack of attention in previous studies to the connection between these managerial, environmental, and organizational elements and their possible impact on planning intensity and performance may be to blame for the misspecification of this relationship (Hopkins and Hopkins, 1997).
Consequently, the consideration of such elements in the current study is seen as an important topic that has consequences for both the conduct of future research and the planning procedures that are now in place.